= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Open Thread: July 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (653)
Not if you interpret your preference about those worlds as assigning most of them low probability, so that only the ordered ones matter.
I don't follow. Many low probability and unordered worlds are highly preferable. Conversely, many high probability worlds are not. I don't see a correlation.
It's a simplification. If preference satisfies expected utility axioms, it can be decomposed on probability and utility, and in this sense probability is a component of preference and shows how much you care about a given possibility. This doesn't mean that utility is high on those possibilities as well, or that the possibilities with high utility will have high probability. See my old post for more on this.
I think that probability is a tool for preference, but I also think that there is a fact of the matter about the effects of actions, and that reality of that effect is objective. This effect is at the level of the sample space (based on all mathematical structures maybe) though, of "brittle math", while the ways you measure the "probability" of a given (objective) event depend on what preference (subjective goals) you are trying to optimize for.
To rephrase, "unless you interpret your preference as denying the multiverse hypothesis" :-)
You don't have to assign exactly no value to anything, which makes all structures relevant (to some extent).